REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE - Chapter 3 - Verse 17

Verse 17. Because thou sayest, I am rich. So far as the language
here is concerned, this may refer either to riches literally, or to and
spiritual riches; that is, to a boast of having religion enough.
Professor Stuart supposes that it refers to the former, and so do
Wetstein, Vitringa, others. Doddridge, Rosenmuller, and others,
understand it in the latter sense. There is no doubt that there was much
wealth in Laodicea, and that, as a people, they prided themselves on
their riches. See the authorities in Wetstein, on Col 2:1, and
Vitringa, p. 160. It is not easy to determine which is the true
sense; but may it not have been that there was an allusion to
both, and that, in every respect, they boasted that they had
enough? May it not have been so much the characteristic of that people
to boast of their wealth, that they carried the spirit into everything,
and manifested it even in regard to religion? Is it not true that they
who have much of this world's goods, when they make a profession of
religion, are very apt to suppose that they are well off in everything,
and to feel self-complacent and happy? And is not the possession of much
wealth by an individual Christian, or a Christian church, likely to
produce just the lukewarmness which it is said existed in the church at
Laodicea? If we thus understand it, there will be an accordance with the
well-known fact that Laodicea was distinguished for its riches, and, at
the same time, with another fact, so common as to be almost universal,
that the possession of great wealth tends to make a professed Christian
self-complacent and satisfied in every respect; to make him feel that,
although he may not have much religion, yet he is on the whole
well off; and to produce, in religion, a state of just such lukewarmness
as the Saviour here says was loathsome and odious. And increased withgoods. peploukhta—"I am enriched." This is only a more emphatic
and intensive way of saying the same thing. It has no reference to the
kind of riches referred to, but merely denotes the confident manner
in which they affirmed that they were rich.

And have need of nothing. Still an emphatic and intensive way of
saying that they were rich. In all respects, their wants were satisfied;
they had enough of everything. They felt, therefore, no stimulus to
effort; they sat down in contentment, self-complacency, and indifference.
It is almost unavoidable that those who are rich in this world's goods
should feel that they have need of nothing. There is no more common
illusion among men than the feeling that if one has wealth, he has
everything; that there is no want of his nature which cannot be
satisfied with that; and that he may now sit down in contentment and
ease. Hence the almost universal desire to be rich; hence the common
feeling among those who are rich that there is no occasion for
solicitude or care for anything else. Compare Lu 12:19.

And knowest not. There is no just impression in regard to the real
poverty and wretchedness of your condition.

That thou art wretched. The word wretched we now use to
denote the actual consciousness of being miserable, as applicable to
one who is sunk into deep distress or affliction. The word here,
however, refers rather to the condition itself than to the consciousness
of that condition, for it is said that they did not know it.
Their state was, in fact, a miserable state, and was fitted to produce
actual distress if they had any just sense of it, though they
thought that it was otherwise.

And miserable. This word has, with us now, a similar signification;
but the term here used—eleeinov—rather means a pitiable state
than one actually felt to be so. The meaning is, that their condition
was one that was fitted to excite pity or compassion; not that
they were actually miserable. See Barnes "1 Co 15:19".

And poor. Notwithstanding all their boast of having enough. They
really had not that which was necessary to meet the actual wants of
their nature, and, therefore, they were poor. Their worldly property
could not meet the wants of their souls; and, with all their pretensions
to piety, they had not religion enough to meet the necessities of their
nature when calamities should come, or when death should approach; and
they were, therefore, in the strictest sense of the term, poor.

And blind. That is, in a spiritual respect. They did not see the
reality of their condition; they had no just views of themselves, of the
character of God, of the way of salvation. This seems to be said in
connexion with the boast which they made in their own minds—that they
had everything; that they wanted nothing. One of the great blessings
of life is clearness of vision, and their boast that they had everything
must have included that; but the speaker here says that they lacked
that indispensable thing to completeness of character and to full
enjoyment. With all their boasting, they were actually blind,—and
how could one who was in that state say that he "had need of nothing?"

And naked. Of course, spiritually. Salvation is often represented
as a garment, (Mt 22:11-12; Re 6:11; 7:9,13-14) and the
declaration here is equivalent to saying that they had no religion. They
had nothing to cover the nakedness of the soul, and in respect to the
real wants of their nature they were like one who had no clothing in
reference to cold, and heat, and storms, and to the shame of nakedness.
How could such an one be regarded as rich? We may learn from this
instructive verse,

(1.) that men may think themselves to be rich, and yet, in fact,
be miserably poor. They may have the wealth of this world in abundance,
and yet have nothing that really will meet their wants in disappointment,
bereavement, sickness, death; the wants of the never-dying soul; their
wants in eternity. What had the "rich fool," as he is commonly termed,
in the parable, when he came to die? Lu 12:16, seq. What had
"Dives," as he is commonly termed, to meet the wants of his nature
when he went down to hell? Lu 16:19, seq.

(2.) Men may have much property, and think that they have all they
want, and yet be wretched. In the sense that their condition is a
wretched condition, this is always true; and in the sense that
they are consciously wretched, this may be and often is true also.

(3.) Men may have great property, and yet be miserable. This is true
in the sense that their condition is a pitiable one, and in the sense
that they are actually unhappy. There is no more pitiable
condition than that where one has great property, and is
self-complacent and proud, and who has nevertheless no God, no Saviour,
no hope of heaven, and who perhaps that very day may "lift up his eyes in
hell, being in torments;" and, it need not be added, that there is no
greater actual misery in this world than that which sometimes finds
its way into the palaces of the rich. He greatly errs who thinks that
misery is confined to the cottages of the poor.

(4.) Men may be rich, and think they have all that they want, and
yet be blind to their condition. They really have no distinct vision
of anything. They have no just views of God, of themselves, of their
duty, of this world, or of the next. In most important respects, they
are in a worse condition than the inmates of an asylum for the blind,
for they may have clear views of God and of heaven. Mental darkness is
a greater calamity than the loss of natural vision; and there is many
an one who is surrounded by all that affluence can give, who never
yet had one correct view of his own character, of his God, or of the
reality of his condition, and whose condition might have been far
better if he had actually been born blind.

(5.) There may be gorgeous robes of adorning, and yet real nakedness.
With all the decorations that wealth can impart, there may be a
nakedness of the soul as real as that of the body would be if, without
a rag to cover it, it were exposed to cold, and storm, and shame.
The soul, destitute of the robes of salvation, is in a worse condition
than the body without raiment: for, how can it bear the storms of wrath
that shall beat upon it for ever, and the shame of its exposure in
the last dread day?